Nvlsp Nehmer Contact

[Berta]

Their email addy is in this link and it pays to read what they will need before you email them.

They will respond as soon as they can.

http://www.nvlsp.org/Information/ArticleLibrary/AgentOrange/AO-VAaddsdiseasestoAOlist.htm

NVLSP does not get our c files etc until they become aware of our AO decision.

At that point, after having prior contact with you, they will obtain your records and review the decision if you want them to.

Their main point for review is to insure that your EED is correct.Rating errors etc might well be up to us as claimants to pursue with NODs etc.

I plan on asking them to CUE themselves if my decision is wrong and to follow that request up -if they dont respond-with a formal NOD.

I do expect my EED to be correct. But one never knows.

NVLSP has stated recently that MANY EED errors have been made already by the VA Nehmer people.

The proper EED is the most significant part of Nehmer and what NVLSP will fight over for you.

I already rattled off here many times how NVLSP got thousands of vets their proper AO retro awards years ago when the VA was defying the Nehmer Court order and Stipulation by using improper EEDs.

That might happen again.I hope not. This time the VA can be sanctioned for these errors as within the Nehmer Training Guide (prepared by NVLSP - NOT by the VA)

The 'deadline' of Oct 31, 2011 for these claims to be completed by ,has been echoed by many vet orgs and advocates and I think might be in the training letter itself.

Chuck and NSA Saigon are extremely well versed in Nehmer and many others here are too.

I expect this forum will grow as the awards under Nehmer trickle in.

My biggest concern is that this forum wont grow- because the vet is happy with their retro and it could be ALL WRONG!

I am preparing an article to put here on the ways I foresee the VA could definitely try to snooker some of us out of proper retro awards even if the EED is correct.

[VetsLady]

Berta,

At your suggestion, I did contact NVLSP and they do have my husbands name on their list from the AO DM2 decision (sc). Still waiting for the heart disease rating. The attorney that called me was extremely helpful, very considerate and said to call when the decision comes in for the heart disease.

I'm glad I made the call. Thank you.

VetsLady

[Berta]

I am glad both of you contacted NVLSP.

The VA told me the other day that claims under the new 3 AOs are being given expeditious treatment if the claim was filed since last August 2010 when the regs came out with no decision yet.(The VA deadline of Oct 31, 2011 has passed.

That is when I filed my AO IHD claim and VA said it got activity in October,2011, went to a supervisor this Monday (Nov 7th) and I should hear something VERY Soon.

Knowing how VA does stuff I asked if he meant by "very" soon, by next week? next month? or next Year?

He laughed because he could not really say when,other then soon, but we talked for a bit about my claim and Nehmer and I was shocked because he gave me more accurate info than I ever got from the VA on my status and he actually knew what he was talking about regarding Nehmer.

NVLSP's help regarding any EED errors is pro bono as they are completely non profit.

[Chuck75]

Besides CUE, it's quite probable that a wrong EED on a Nehmer claim would mean that the VA had not fully complied with the court order, and give the NVLSP another nail to seek contempt of court.

The VA, naturally, would say something "honest error", "isolated error", etc.

A successful contempt proceeding would give the court reason to reopen the whole A/O can of worms, and might give the court cause and justification to impose additional conditions and penalty, so the VA will really try to avoid going back to court.

With the judiciaries existing comments on the VA's award, delay, and accuracy record taken into consideration, there is reason and cause for the court to really hammer the VA if it would chose to do so. (Unlikely, but you never know!)

As a result, getting the NVLSP involved is one of the best things you can do.

(At the very least, they seem to have "helped" the VA finally make favorable decisions in my case, after "just sitting" on things for quite some time.)

The "O- S---" moment for the VA in my case was that they had not notified NVLSP that I was a Nehmer member, even though they had previously awarded an A/O presumptive claim and an increase.

PS -don't worry about the appeal date. I think, if the VARO erred in your EED, NVLSP can fix that because they (VA) have made a clear and unmistakable error if the EED is wrong.

[Chuck75]

"I foresee the VA could definitely try to snooker some of us out of proper retro awards even if the EED is correct."

So far, what I see is that the VA's calculation of retro due, with deductions for past payments can be incomplete and from an accountant's view, incorrect.

This leaves the question open as to the accuracy of what was paid, and may force a veteran to try to calculate it. The details can be a major issue, and cause real problems in getting an accurate result.

The existence of past "co-pay" can add to the problem, since the veteran may not have received repayment and interest due the veteran.

It seems that the veteran may not know that he or she might need to take that on as a new and separate effort after a favorable decision.

One area of possible confusion related to "co-pay" and recovery.

The VA has long published policy documents that flatly state that the VA does not charge "co-pay" for "presumptive conditions". This applies to A/O and SHAD related conditions on the "list".

The VAMCs use/used two different categories, one for "presumptive" and one for "service connected". Originally, the presumptive category was considered to be for listed conditions that were, well, presumptive.

Once they had been adjudicated, they then fell into the "service connected" category. (This may have been one of the causes of veteran's omissions from the Nehmer list furnished to NVLSP)

Further, the VA in various past policy and medical practice guidelines acknowledged the relationship of various conditions that are considered to be A/O related. They still do in medical guides and documents.

But, the M-21 was revised some time ago, and the revision quietly renumbered the section involved, and removed the language connecting DMII to many of the other serious conditions. This actually occurred

around the time that DMII was made presumptive.

Yet, in the past, the VA has interpreted this to mean that the "policy" really applies only to those conditions that have been "adjudicated", even when the VA medical records show that the conditions are existing.

DMII, as an example usually has an SC'd percentage of 10% or 20%. The VA common prescription is Metformin.

The VA usually did not charge co-pay for Metformin, but often did charge for medication that is involved with related conditions common to A/O veterans.

It is incontrovertible medical fact that DMII "aggravates", or increases the severity, or even can cause many of these conditions, as well as less common conditions that are not presumptive.

When the VA finally was forced to deal with IHD, co-pay for many veterans became refundable by the VA's own thinking, and court order.

The question then arises as to what period should be used to calculate the refunds. Nehmer forces the refund to go back to the earliest claim for an A/O related condition.

Policy documents, on the other hand, say that co-pay should not have been charged in the first place. This can produce dates with years or even decades apart when refunds are calculated.

One limiting factor has to do with the low co-pay required in the past, as it was about $2-2.50 for many years, and only recently increased to about $8.00. This limits interest by the lawyers, service orgs and even congress.

(I seem to be rambling, sorry. The mess is kinda like a spider web.)

Their email addy is in this link and it pays to read what they will need before you email them.

They will respond as soon as they can.

http://www.nvlsp.org...sestoAOlist.htm

NVLSP does not get our c files etc until they become aware of our AO decision.

At that point, after having prior contact with you, they will obtain your records and review the decision if you want them to.

Their main point for review is to insure that your EED is correct.Rating errors etc might well be up to us as claimants to pursue with NODs etc.

I plan on asking them to CUE themselves if my decision is wrong and to follow that request up -if they dont respond-with a formal NOD.

I do expect my EED to be correct. But one never knows.

NVLSP has stated recently that MANY EED errors have been made already by the VA Nehmer people.

The proper EED is the most significant part of Nehmer and what NVLSP will fight over for you.

I already rattled off here many times how NVLSP got thousands of vets their proper AO retro awards years ago when the VA was defying the Nehmer Court order and Stipulation by using improper EEDs.

That might happen again.I hope not. This time the VA can be sanctioned for these errors as within the Nehmer Training Guide (prepared by NVLSP - NOT by the VA)

The 'deadline' of Oct 31, 2011 for these claims to be completed by ,has been echoed by many vet orgs and advocates and I think might be in the training letter itself.

Chuck and NSA Saigon are extremely well versed in Nehmer and many others here are too.

I expect this forum will grow as the awards under Nehmer trickle in.

My biggest concern is that this forum wont grow- because the vet is happy with their retro and it could be ALL WRONG!

I am preparing an article to put here on the ways I foresee the VA could definitely try to snooker some of us out of proper retro awards even if the EED is correct.

[Berta]

Chuck-you always make such profound points-

I think Nehmer will cause the VA to be sanctioned in the long run.

I have been trying to do some posts to put here where I see the pitfalls on these awards-

SMC for example, do to a favorable AO rating, as well as dependency issues that could have changed (by less or by more)since the AO EED.

Co pay is definitely another issue these Nehmer vets vets have to consider.

And Widows or widowers under accrued Nehmer awards-I bet the VA will mess many of those awards up big time.

Since VA said I could expect decision very soon, I have pulled out all of my files.

I think the EED might be right on it but I do expect rating problems.

I held them by the hand on the medical evidence so they couldn't get it wrong.But that means they have to be literate enough to comprehend it.And I told them exactly what accrued amount I was seeking.

DIC awards under Nehmer should not be difficult at all.It is the accrued stuff that could get messed up.

I mentioned before here how VA tried to snooker me out of thousands of dollars.

I didn't even catch one of the biggest errors for years because the "audit " they sent to me looked kind of professional.

I see many guests reading this AO forum these days-----I hope they join hadit if they get a decision that might be wrong.

[carlie]

I mentioned before here how VA tried to snooker me out of thousands of dollars.

I didn't even catch one of the biggest errors for years because the "audit " they sent to me looked kind of professional.

I have been told that finance has a computer program to figure retro (past dus comp,smc's and dependent comp)

now granted.

I do fully believe they have this type of computer program BUT, I have began to wonder how much of this program is dependent on human input.